Obama Resigns From Trinity Church, 20-Years Too Late

Politico.com is reporting that the Obama campaign is going to spin the resignation from Trinity thus: Barack did this to protect the church from the relentless media coverage it has been receiving, coverage which may be impeding the church from doing its "good works."

I've written before about the cynicism evinced by Obama in wrapping around the Cross, much as the far-right reactionary candidates of the past have exclusively done. With the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter, Barack is the first progressive Democrat candidate to adopt one of the vilest and most divisive tactics employed by the Right.

I have argued that deployment of religiosity by Obama was a grievous and gratuitous strategic error that would (and already has) come back to haunt him.

His 20-year-too-late resignation from the church is preposterous on its face. Is he expecting the public to swallow the idea that only since the media shined its lights on Trinity has it been a sanctuary for anti-white sentiment? That, in his 20-years of alleged Trinity church going he never heard similar race-baiting comments coming from the pulpit?

He used the church membership as another line on his political resume; after all, how can anyone be elected president if he/she cannot plausibly assert membership in one church or another? Unfortunately for the candidate, he choose the wrong church and now, in the famous words of Rev. Wright himself, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

The Obama campaign is confronted with its first significant political dilemma. Either the candidate is an obvious hypocrite and was a church member in name only and didn't know or care anything about the church's ideology; or, he was deeply involved in church matters and at least implicitly condoned this church's ideological bent. Not a pretty choice.

He played the god-card when he had no need to do so; now he has to live with the consequences of that decision.

[Note: I take no joy in writing this; his achievements thus far have been monumental, as is his courage.]

Speaking the Unspeakable: A Lesson in Modern Politics for Barack

Obama's remarks are reminiscent of John Kerry's to some student assembly (as I recall) during his campaign. He urged his audience members to stay and do well in school or "you'll wind up in Iraq," or words the that effect.

His opponents accused him of showing disrespect for those in uniform; of being an elitist; and all the other usual accusations that follow a remark as un-politic as Kerry's.

This time around, the un-politic remarks have come during the primary season. So it's fellow-democrat Hillary who is leading the charge to paint Obama as a man out of touch with the common people, the working folk.

There are several points of interest in this (and the Kerry) brouhaha:

1. The underlying veracity of the statements are not an issue. In fact, Obama now and Kerry then are being castigated for truth-telling, perhaps the greatest vice any politician can have.

2. Over and over and over again, candidates have--usually unwittingly--displayed the fact that they are as far removed from the bus driver, cashier, assembly-line worker, as are Madonna or A-Rod. Yet politicians are required to perpetuate a mythology that even the common wo/man doesn't himself take seriously.

3. The real insult to all the Average Joe's and Joan's is that true, dyed-in-the-wool pols, like HRC, interact with them as if they were children in need of being told fairy tales only, lest the truth, the reality, of situations scare them like the bogeyman scares a 5-year-old. In short, these average people are there only to be manipulated, cajoled, pacified; the goal is getting their vote every few years, period.

Kerry speaks the Truth. He's crucified by his political enemies.

Obama allows Truth to spew from his mouth; HRC is right there to make him pay for it.

[Note: There is an argument that can be made that Barack and John, by speaking the unspeakable, have thereby shown themselves to be inferior politicians, politicians who are unlikely to win elections, especially presidential ones. This may, indeed, be a valid argument. If so, it makes me shudder.]

HRC as the Perfect 21st Century President

Let's just bite the bullet and elect a bold-face liar as President of the United States (POTUS).

The world is the world; honesty and truthfulness are not necessarily the qualities that will produce the most effective president. In fact, such qualities may hinder his or her success.

The Presidential race has essentially already began, but instead of 2 candidates, we have 3.

And of the 3, there is absolutely no contest regarding which of them is the Liar-extraordinaire. Hillary outdistances McCain and Obama by light-years. The other two may exaggerate their qualifications to be POTUS. But HRC, since she has zero qualifications for the job, just flat-out lies. It's a thing of beauty to behold, because she lies about events that even the feeble-minded mass media can check up on...and in some cases, produce video that absolutely refute her recollections.

Imagine our adversaries being confronted by a POTUS whose claim to fame is bold-faced lying, pure and simple. No principles, no real dedication to any particular ideology, no qualms about saying whatever is necessary to achieve her objectives, no loyalty to anything but herself---how in hell does Putin et al deal with that? After-all, we elected her knowing full well that she doesn't have an honest bone in her body. In fact, that's why we elected her!

HRC is the perfect 21st Century President: patently unqualified, willing to do or say anything to enhance her personal status, unencumbered by any beliefs other than her own personal ambitions...even that most personal of human relationships--marriage--was a mere business arrangement; in a world of ice, who better to lead the country than an icicle?

Honesty Gap

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105097/Perceived-Honesty-Gap-Clinton-Versus-Obama-McCain.aspx


the material at the above link is copyrighted by Gallup, Inc.